Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Number (pricing game)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Number (pricing game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject is unsourced and topic is adequately covered in the appropriate section of List of The Price Is Right pricing games. No reliable third party sources available and Google search turns up only YouTube links and fansites. Also, Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality and nomination follows similar reasoning in the following recent AFDs:

Sottolacqua (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Sufficiently covered in the main list. Absolutely no sources forthcoming in nearly 5 years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close mass AfD, open three separate ones~~ - The consensus of the last AfD was specifically that these articles can't be dealt with through a mass nomination. Some of the pricing games are notable, others aren't. In accordance with that outcome, could we split this into three AfDs please? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mass AFD. Only one pricing game is at play here; the other two links are past afds where a precedent formed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, TenPoundHammer, I got confused by your vote of "delete all". Yes, delete Magic Number (pricing game), as there is no evidence in the article (or in good faith searches) of this particular pricing game being notable per WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered elsewhere, not notable enough on its own. Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.